Human judgment, it appears, is frail and fettered no matter which
humans the judgment comes from. Even the greatest of leaders
can’t get out of the way of their own egos.

Neuroscience and behavioral economics now tell us that all humans
fall into a common set of decision traps or cognitive
biases—from, for example, anchoring (overreliance on familiar but
irrele- vant information for a decision) to the zero-risk bias (a
penchant to reduce a minor risk to nothing, but missing the
opportunity to reduce propor- tionately instead a much bigger
risk).

A recent article suggests that while leaders may be able to
identify the cognitive biases in others’ decisions and
recommendations, they have virtually no chance of seeing their
own.

Yet no matter how many mistakes are made by individuals,
the single leader and decision maker prevails as a paradigm.
History still puts the “great man” (or, less common, the “great
woman”) on a prominent pedes- tal. Management theorists still
praise the solitary, heroic leader. Indeed, there’s a long philosophical tradition
behind the “great man” theory.

Thomas Carlyle, the nineteenth-century Scottish philosopher,
began his 1840 book, On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic
in History, with these words:

We have undertaken to discourse here for a little on Great Men,
their manner of appearance in our world’s business, how they have
shaped themselves in the world’s history, what ideas men formed
of them, what work they did.

Carlyle, who was known earlier in his career as a curmudgeonly
and satirical writer, abandoned all pretense of satire when
writing about Great Men (we’ll continue to capitalize the term in
a somewhat satirical fashion). Later in the introduction to the
book, he writes worshipfully:

One comfort is, that Great Men, taken up in any way, are
profitable company. We cannot look, however imperfectly, upon a
great man, without gaining something by him. He is the living
light-fountain, which it is good and pleasant to be near. The
light which enlightens, which has enlightened the darkness of the
world; and this not as a kindled lamp only, but rather as a
natural luminary shining by the gift of Heaven; a flowing
light-fountain, as I say, of native original insight, of manhood
and heroic nobleness;—in whose radiance all souls feel that it is
well with them.

Carlyle already sounds a bit nutty in his enthusiasm for Great
Men, and this is only page 1 of his book. Indeed, Carlyle’s views
increasingly diverged from those of polite society as he aged. He
maintained that democracy was an impossible form of government,
and that slavery should never have been abolished. Adolf Hitler
found his biography of Frederick the Great (a generous gift from
Joseph Goebbels) inspiring and comforting in his last days in the
Berlin bunker.

Fortunately, most of Carlyle’s ideas have been left behind, but
not the Great Man notion. It lives on in both theory and
practice. That is, of course, because it is such a
convenient fiction in some ways. In a society that depends on its
members’ taking initiative and suffers when they indulge in free
riding, it helps to hold up role models and dangle the incentive
of fame and fortune for individual achievement. As David Ogilvy
was fond of saying, “Search your parks in all your cities/You’ll
find no stat- ues of committees.” There is no denying, too, that
most would rather lis- ten to a good yarn about a maverick taking
on the world and beating the odds. As much as we might revere a
studiously deliberative body—like the Supreme Court—there tends
to be little romance in its triumphs.

Thus we see publishers shelling out huge advances to leaders
willing to tell their tales—as GE’s former CEO Jack Welch did in
Jack: Straight from the Gut and, more recently, George W. Bush
did in Decision Points. But it isn’t only the public at large
that hangs on such words; many a leadership scholar has written
almost as worshipfully as Carlyle about the charismatic power and
decision-making genius of great corporate and governmental
leaders. One of the more tempered appreciations of leadership
decision making is Noel Tichy and Warren Bennis’s Judgment: How
Winning Leaders Make Great Calls, but still the focus is on
famous CEOs and the approaches they personally embrace.

The leadership literature’s Great Man obsession might be harmless
enough—the management equivalent of romance novels—if it were not
for the fact that it fuels real disparities and painful
disappointments in society. In the corporate realm, boards of
directors, desperate to boost bottom lines, seize upon those few
candidates whose track records suggest they are in possession of
some fairy dust to sprinkle, and the ensuing bidding war pushes
chief executives’ salaries sky-high. In 2010, the average CEO in
the S&P 500 made $11.4 million in total compensation—343
times the median income for workers in all occupations.14
Modern-day CEO perks often exceed Frederick the Great’s—they have
airplanes, limousines, security forces, massive expense accounts,
and large retinues at their disposal. This despite the fact that,
in many cases, the fairy dust never materializes.

And in government, while we don’t pay our Great Men so much, we
continue to believe—despite much evidence to the contrary—that
they are the solution to all the world’s (or at least the
country’s) problems. We devote an increasing amount of attention
to them in presidential campaigns. We ascribe (at least if they
represent our party and political beliefs) heroic traits to them.
We hold them accountable for realizing all our dreams and
aspirations, for finding us jobs and making our house prices
increase. Like the image dreamed by Nebuchadnezzar, King of
Babylon, the reality on the ground is not as impressive:

Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This
great image,

whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and
the form

thereof was terrible.

This image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms
of silver, his

belly and his thighs of brass,

His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of
clay. (Daniel 2:31–33)

The Antidote to the Great Man Theory

We offer this book as an antidote for, and even the counter to,
the Great Man theory of decision making and organizational
performance. We view no individual man or woman as uniquely and
solely responsible for won- derful outcomes; CEOs, political
leaders, visionary thinkers, like all of us too, are living
examples of at least occasional human frailty in thought and
deed. Even the best leaders sometimes make bad decisions; the
worst make them frequently, and perhaps one or more that can
bring down previously massive and hugely successful
organizations.

Instead of Great Men, we’ll preach the virtues of Great
Organizations— organizations that build the ongoing capability to
make great decisions again and again, reflecting the judgment to
more consistently than not make “great calls” in difficult
situations. Great Organizations expand the number of people
involved in important decisions, because they know that while
individual humans are fallible, in the aggregate they are usually
more effective. They tap into their employees’ (and customers’
and partners’) broad range of expertise, and they ask for their
opinions; they deliberate and problem-solve toward a better
answer, instead of “going with the gut.” They also employ data
and analysis to make decisions, because they know that on the
whole, the scientific method is the single best guide to deci-
sions and actions the world has ever known. They employ sound
decision- making processes, including investigating multiple
alternatives, seeking out dissent, and fostering a decision
culture of inquiry rather than advo- cacy. In short, they become
effective decision machines in which Great Men aren’t necessary
or desired, at least in the sense of dictating an answer “just
because s/he’s the boss.”

When such organizations employ these approaches on an
ongoing basis, we call it good organizational judgment.

Of course, leaders are still important (though perhaps not
343 times more important as the average worker, as today’s salary
scales imply). Good leaders create the agenda of decisions to be
made. They set the tone for cul- ture and decision processes.
They encourage the diverse members of their organizations to step
up and participate in deliberations and decisions. We are not
dismissive of leadership and leaders in this book at all, but we
think they have a new set of roles to play. The Great Man (or
Woman) of the future knows the role of the great leader is not to
decide important ques- tions alone—but rather to ensure that all
the right things happen across their organizations so that the
best thinking and the best problem solving results in a better
answer.